In <001101c0f411$012076a0$380a@phoenix>, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> FWIW I scanned a frame off a recent roll of T400CN and in the midtones there
> is no significant grain visible at 2700dpi. There's something like grain in
> the shadows but as it's a C41 B&W neg film I'm not sure how to label it.
At 01:22 PM 6/14/01 +1000, Yuri J Sos wrote:
>At the same ISO, I really can't tell the difference (but I don't do
>much portrait photography). Most of the time now I use Superia 200
>where I used to used Reala 100 and for what I do (web and prints to
>max 8"x10") it's perfectly satisfactory. Pl
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
>
>> Rafe wrote:
>>
>>> Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
>>> bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
>>
>> I was under the impression that there was little if any
>> diffe
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:44:19 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>Which is better (Reala or Superia)
>at the same ISO? Given that I like Reala,
>would I like Superia?
At the same ISO, I really can't tell the difference (but I don't do
much portrait photography). Most of the time now I use Superia 200
wh
"Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, Supra is a C41 print film. Superia,
> as I recall, as an E6 positive film. Fuji's
> "equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps.
No. Superia is a C41 print film. At least in Australia, all the Fuji
retail (non pro) colour print films
Fujicolor Superia is print film, negative but not positive.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Raphael Bustin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance,
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:47:38 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>First off, Supra is a C41 print film. Superia,
>as I recall, as an E6 positive film. Fuji's
>"equivalent" to Supra might be Reala, perhaps.
Not so. Superia is a C41 colour negative film. Fuji claims that
Superia contains Reala technolog
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Rafe wrote:
> >Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
> >bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
>
> I was under the impression that there was little if any
> difference between the current generation Superia 1
Rafe wrote:
>Fuji Reala is beautiful. Kodak Royal Gold 100 isn't
>bad, either. But Supra (100) is my current favorite.
I was under the impression that there was little if any
difference between the current generation Superia 100
and Reala. When Fuji announced the extra colour layer,
it seemed
I have been very pleased with the Supra 100 with my LS-30, and at $3.04 a 36
exp roll, an excellent buy.
Edwin
- Original Message -
From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: films
I tried Superia 200 and 400 and they were both grainy - the 400 moreso.
- Original Message -
From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now
At 05:08 PM 6/12/01 -0400, Dan wrote:
>What are the best color and b&w films in terms of scanning? From what I've
>read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color, and
>the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) for b&w. Are there others?
>
>Also, if one is planning ul
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Was New Nikon performance, now dust
| What are the best color and b&w films in terms of scanning? From what
I've
| read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a s
Dan wrote:
> What are the best color and b&w films in terms
> of scanning?
This is a question which I began attempting to quantify at least in the
sense of a guide if not actually a scientific way. Unfortunately it's an
expensive and time consuming exercise to test every possible film in the
sam
What are the best color and b&w films in terms of scanning? From what I've
read thus far, it sounds like Kodak Supra has a slight edge for color, and
the C41 processed films (XP2 super and T400CN) for b&w. Are there others?
Also, if one is planning ultimately to scan and maintain files in digit
I see the last snips never made it to the list. Did you get them
(sent directly to you)?
Dave
> David, would you be kind enough to post the same two images that you
did
> previously, but this time using the unsharp masking you feel best
> "glorifies" the Agfa scan.
Dave King wrote:
>
> Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it
> seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end
> results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has
> recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The Agfa is definitely softer,
> > no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa
scan
> > on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan,
which
> > is my no
At 02:56 AM 6/11/01 EDT, Ed Hamrick wrote:
>Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since
>this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the
>results from the two scanners.
I disagree here, Ed. Here's why.
It seems some scanner vendors (maybe all) imple
In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The Agfa is definitely softer,
> no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan
> on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which
> is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In spite of this, it appears clear that the T-2500 doesn't focus
> as well as the Nikon scan, and this is most of the reason that
> the dust spots are different.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
I've been playing with these two tiffs (sent to Ed) a bit more, and no
matter how
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a message dated 6/10/2001 4:13:40 PM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The T-2500 scan (agfsnipVS) is a bit softer and flatter than the
LS-30
> > scan (niksnipVS). After sharpening and correcting tone on both
scans,
> > I thought the T-2500 scan rendered image
In a message dated 6/10/2001 4:13:40 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The T-2500 scan (agfsnipVS) is a bit softer and flatter than the LS-30
> scan (niksnipVS). After sharpening and correcting tone on both scans,
> I thought the T-2500 scan rendered image detail slightly better than
> the
Dave writes ...
> > > It would be useful if you'd do a 2500 dpi and 2700 dpi scan of the
> > > same bits of film, to demonstrate the effect you're talking about.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ed Hamrick
> >
...
>
> Or I should say, can someone tell me how to make the files as small as
> possible wit
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In a message dated 6/10/2001 8:32:54 AM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I've never done critical comparisons of resolution between
> > them, as they both resolve grain pretty well, and seem about the
same
> > in terms of resolution.
>
> It would be useful if yo
In a message dated 6/10/2001 8:32:54 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've never done critical comparisons of resolution between
> them, as they both resolve grain pretty well, and seem about the same
> in terms of resolution.
It would be useful if you'd do a 2500 dpi and 2700 dpi scan of t
From: Isaac Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For the record, I don't own a Nikon scanner, heck I don't own any
> scanner right now... I'm using this forum as a means to figure out
what
> it is I want to get. I have done darkroom work for years, and I use
two
> film scanners at work. I have to say t
27 matches
Mail list logo
